4 February 2026
Ms. Shreya Dalal, Associate Partner & Ms. Sanjana Salvi, Associate
The Supreme Court in Dr. Sohail Malik v. Union of India & Anr., has clarified the jurisdiction of Internal Complaints Committees (“ICC”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Court held that the ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman is competent to inquire into a complaint even when the respondent is employed in a different department or organisation. The expression “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act was interpreted as procedural and not as a jurisdictional limitation. The Court further held that surrendering jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s department would defeat the remedial purpose of the statute and create barriers for victims seeking redress.
Background:
The Appellant, an Indian Revenue Service officer posted in the Central Board of Direct Taxes, was accused of sexually harassing a senior IAS officer posted in the Department of Food and Public Distribution. An FIR was registered and, subsequently, the aggrieved woman filed a complaint before the ICC constituted in her department. The ICC issued a notice to the Appellant to participate in the inquiry. The Appellant challenged the jurisdiction of that ICC before the Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”), contending that only the ICC of his own department could inquire into the complaint. The CAT dismissed the challenge, which was affirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether an ICC constituted at the workplace of the aggrieved woman can entertain a complaint against an employee of a different department.
- Whether the phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 of the POSH Act requires the inquiry to be conducted only by the ICC of the respondent’s workplace.
Contentions of the Parties
Appellant (employee/Respondent):
Section 11 of the POSH Act mandates that an inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the service rules applicable to the respondent, implying jurisdiction of the ICC of his own department. Disciplinary action can be taken only by his controlling authority; therefore, the ICC of another department lacks jurisdiction. Favourably, the aggrieved woman could initiate criminal proceedings under Section 19(h) of the POSH Act.
Respondent (aggrieved woman):
The POSH Act is a social welfare legislation and must receive a purposive interpretation. The definitions of “respondent” and “workplace” are broad and do not require both parties to belong to the same establishment. Section 13 of the POSH Act permits the ICC to send recommendations to the employer of the respondent, even if different from that of the aggrieved woman.
Judgement:
The Supreme Court held that the word “where” in Section 11 of the POSH Act is used in a conditional sense (i.e., “if”) and does not denote the place of employment of the respondent. Section 11 of the POSH Act is procedural and does not restrict jurisdiction to the ICC of the respondent’s department.
Definitions of “respondent,” “employee,” and “workplace” under the POSH Act are deliberately expansive and permit complaints against persons from different establishments. Requiring the victim to approach the ICC of another department would create psychological and legal barriers contrary to the object of the POSH Act.
Under Section 13 of the POSH Act, the ICC of the aggrieved woman’s workplace may conduct the fact-finding inquiry and forward its recommendations to the employer of the respondent for disciplinary action.
Placing reliance on an Office Memorandum dated 16 July 2015 issued by the Government of India’s Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, the inquiry into a complaint against government employees is to be conducted in two distinct stages:
- Preliminary inquiry investigating the veracity of complaint by the ICC where the complaint is filed;
- A report or recommendation of the ICC to the Disciplinary Authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings by the respondent’s department based on those findings.
The Court held that woman subjected to harassment by an outsider can approach ICC under the POSH Act. The ICC at the complainant’s workplace has full jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint even if the respondent works in another department. The Court held that the POSH Act does not impose requirements for both parties to share the same workplace.
MHCO Comment:
This judgment is a significant affirmation of the remedial character of the POSH Act. By rejecting a restrictive interpretation of Section 11 of the POSH Act, the Supreme Court has ensured that inter-departmental or third-party harassment does not escape scrutiny. Employers must be prepared to act on ICC reports originating from other establishments and align disciplinary processes accordingly. The ruling promotes a safe and accessible grievance mechanism consistent with constitutional guarantees of dignity and equality for women at the workplace.
The views expressed in this update are personal and should not be construed as any legal advice. Please contact us for any assistance.
Originally published by MHCO Law